About the race

Steve Chabot is the current representative and a longtime holder of the office. 44% favorable rating; 38% unfavorable; 18% don’t know

Based on 503 interviews

This gerrymandered district includes most of the city of Cincinnati, and stretches out to conservative exurbs to ensure a Republican-lean.

Mr. Pureval, 36, an Ohio native of Tibetan and Indian descent, is a relative newcomer to politics, having been elected to the clerk of courts post in 2016. Before that, he worked as a lawyer.

Unusually for a candidate challenging an entrenched incumbent, Mr. Pureval is leading in fund-raising as of the most recent reporting period, with about $1.6 million versus just under $1 million for Mr. Chabot.

Mr. Chabot, 65, has represented the district almost continuously since 1995 (losing in 2008 but winning again in 2010) and has been a strong supporter of the Trump agenda, including voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

How our poll result changed

As we reach more people, our poll will become more stable and the margin of sampling error will shrink. The changes in the timeline below reflect that sampling error, not real changes in the race.

One reason we’re doing these surveys live is so you can see the uncertainty for yourself.

But sampling error is not the only type of error in a poll.

Our turnout model

There’s a big question on top of the standard margin of error in a poll: Who is going to vote? It’s a particularly challenging question this year, since special elections have shown Democrats voting in large numbers.

To estimate the likely electorate, we combine what people say about how likely they are to vote with information about how often they have voted in the past. In previous races, this approach has been more accurate than simply taking people at their word. But there are many other ways to do it.

Our poll under different turnout scenarios

Who will vote?

Est. turnout

Our poll result

The types of people who voted in 2014

201k

Chabot +15

Our estimate

249k

Chabot +9

People whose voting history suggests they will vote, regardless of what they say

252k

Chabot +10

People who say they will vote, adjusted for past levels of truthfulness

263k

Chabot +10

People who say they are almost certain to vote, and no one else

266k

Even

The types of people who voted in 2016

344k

Chabot +8

Every active registered voter

468k

Chabot +5

All estimates based on 503 interviews

Just because one candidate leads in all of these different turnout scenarios doesn’t mean much by itself. They don’t represent the full range of possible turnout scenarios, let alone the full range of possible election results.

The types of people we reached

Even if we got turnout exactly right, the margin of error wouldn’t capture all of the error in a poll. The simplest version assumes we have a perfect random sample of the voting population. We do not.

People who respond to surveys are almost always too old, too white, too educated and too politically engaged to accurately represent everyone.

How successful we were in reaching different kinds of voters

Called

Inter-viewed

Successrate

Ourrespon­ses

Goal

18 to 29

5116

32

1 in 160

6%

10%

30 to 64

22295

317

1 in 70

63%

59%

65 and older

7022

154

1 in 46

31%

30%

Male

16193

228

1 in 71

45%

47%

Female

18255

275

1 in 66

55%

53%

White

24928

360

1 in 69

72%

71%

Nonwhite

6522

106

1 in 62

21%

20%

Cell

22980

267

1 in 86

53%

—

Landline

11468

236

1 in 49

47%

—

Based on administrative records. Some characteristics are missing or incorrect. Many voters are called multiple times.

Pollsters compensate by giving more weight to respondents from under-represented groups.

But weighting works only if you weight by the right categories and you know what the composition of the electorate will be. In 2016, many pollsters didn’t weight by education and overestimated Hillary Clinton’s standing as a result.

Here are other common ways to weight a poll:

Our poll under different weighting schemes

Our poll result

Weight using census data instead of voting records, like most public polls

Chabot +6

Don’t weight by education, like many polls in 2016

Chabot +8

Don’t weight by primary vote, like most public polls

Chabot +9

Our estimate

Chabot +9

All estimates based on 503 interviews

Just because one candidate leads in all of these different weighting scenarios doesn’t mean much by itself. They don’t represent the full range of possible weighting scenarios, let alone the full range of possible election results.

Undecided voters

About 9 percent of voters said that they were undecided or refused to tell us whom they would vote for.

They are not numerous enough to change the lead in our poll by themselves. But they — and others — could change their minds. (We could also be wrong on turnout or our sample could be unrepresentative.)

Issues and other questions

We're asking voters about feminism and whether they think it's important to elect more women to public office.

We're also asking whether they support Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president?

Approve

Disapp.

Don’t know

Voters n = 503

48%

49%

3%

Would you prefer Republicans to retain control of the House of Representatives or would you prefer Democrats to take control?

Reps. keep House

Dems. take House

Don’t know

Voters n = 503

50%

43%

7%

Do you support or oppose Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court?

support

oppose

Don’t know

Voters n = 503

51%

40%

10%

Do you support electing more people who describe themselves as feminists?

support

oppose

Don’t know

Voters n = 503

48%

34%

17%

Is it important to elect more women to public office?

agree

disagree

Don’t know

Voters n = 503

76%

17%

7%

As you think about your member of Congress, would you prefer your representative to support President Trump and his agenda, or to serve as a check on the president and his agenda?

Support

Check

Don’t know

Voters n = 503

45%

48%

7%

Percentages are weighted to resemble likely voters.

What different types of voters said

Voters nationwide are deeply divided along demographic lines. Our poll suggests divisions too. But don’t overinterpret these tables. Results among subgroups may not be representative or reliable. Be especially careful with groups with fewer than 100 respondents, shown here in stripes.

Gender

Dem.

Rep.

Und.

Female n = 275 / 53% of voters

47%

44%

9%

Male 228 / 47%

34%

57%

9%

Age

Dem.

Rep.

Und.

18 to 29 n = 30 / 7% of voters

38%

53%

9%

30 to 44 88 / 19%

48%

42%

10%

45 to 64 231 / 43%

44%

49%

7%

65 and older 154 / 31%

32%

56%

11%

Race

Dem.

Rep.

Und.

White n = 382 / 76% of voters

33%

58%

8%

Black 77 / 15%

80%

13%

7%

Hispanic 10 / 2%

26%

54%

20%

Asian 6 / 1%

67%

—

33%

Other 13 / 2%

33%

61%

6%

Race and education

Dem.

Rep.

Und.

Nonwhite n = 106 / 21% of voters

68%

22%

10%

White, college grad 217 / 37%

43%

50%

7%

White, not college grad 165 / 39%

25%

66%

9%

Education

Dem.

Rep.

Und.

H.S. Grad. or Less n = 80 / 26% of voters

36%

55%

9%

Some College Educ. 155 / 29%

37%

52%

11%

4-year College Grad. 163 / 28%

44%

48%

8%

Post-grad. 103 / 17%

51%

43%

6%

Party

Dem.

Rep.

Und.

Democrat n = 139 / 27% of voters

85%

7%

8%

Republican 172 / 36%

4%

89%

7%

Independent 173 / 34%

46%

42%

12%

Another party 13 / 3%

35%

60%

5%

Primary vote

Dem.

Rep.

Und.

Democratic n = 143 / 27% of voters

83%

11%

6%

Republican 223 / 45%

13%

78%

9%

Other 137 / 28%

44%

43%

13%

Intention of voting

Dem.

Rep.

Und.

Almost certain n = 322 / 66% of voters

45%

48%

7%

Very likely 123 / 25%

35%

56%

9%

Somewhat likely 32 / 6%

33%

44%

24%

Not very likely 13 / 1%

13%

66%

21%

Not at all likely 8 / 1%

25%

66%

9%

Percentages are weighted to resemble likely voters; the number of respondents in each subgroup is unweighted. Undecided voters includes those who refused to answer.

This survey was conducted by The New York Times Upshot and Siena College.

Data collection by Reconnaissance Market Research, M. Davis and Company, the Institute for Policy and Opinion Research at Roanoke College, the Survey Research Center at the University of Waterloo, the University of North Florida and the Siena College Research Institute.